You are on page 1of 8

Accuracy of MSC/NASTRAN First- and Second-Order Tetrahedral Elements in Solid Modeling for Stress Analysis

A. Entrekin Engineer, Production Airframe Structures Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. P.O. Box 482 Fort Worth, Texas 76101 (817) 280-4220 AEntrekin@bellhelicopter.textron.com

ABSTRACT Solid element FEM models are often used in the analysis of complex structural components to apply complex loading conditions and predict stress levels. The simplest solid element available to the finite element modeler is the first-order four-node tetrahedron, or TET4. The tetrahedral element is often used because of its ability to mesh almost any solid, regardless of complexity. However, the formulation of the TET4 element makes it necessary to use a very large number of elements to accurately model areas around stress concentrations. In general, the elements edge lengths must all be a fraction of the size of the smallest feature to get accurate results. This density of mesh produces models that are often too cumbersome to be analyzed. In these situations, second-order tetrahedral elements, or TET10 elements, are very useful. Since second-order elements are not restricted to straight-line edges, they can model complex solids more accurately with fewer elements. In addition, the stress levels predicted by TET10 elements are slightly conservative in areas of stress concentration, while those predicted by the first-order TET4 are considerably unconservative using meshes of comparable size. The TET10 element produces better results in bending applications with fewer elements required through the thickness of the part. However, MSC/NASTRAN does not support second-order elements in nonlinear analyses. These conclusions are based on two solid models that were created and analyzed using Unigraphics , MSC/PATRAN and MSC/NASTRAN . The results from these models suggest that TET10 elements produce slightly conservative results in areas of stress concentration, while TET4 models of similar size produce unconservative and less accurate results. The results also indicate that the TET10 element models bending behavior in structures with fewer elements than are required in a TET4 model to produce similar results. For these reasons, when modeling parts that have areas of stress concentration or that may be subjected to bending, second-order TET10 elements perform more accurately and more reliably than firstorder TET4 elements. Since MSC/NASTRAN does not support second-order elements in nonlinear analyses, the use of solid elements in nonlinear applications should be avoided.

Introduction The accuracy (and, therefore, the usefulness) of MSC/NASTRAN tetrahedral elements for stress analysis has been called into question recently. It has been suggested that the first-order tetrahedral element (TET4) is not reliable in the stress levels it predicts. More accurate stress level predictions are attainable using the second-order tetrahedral element (TET10). However, the modification of a TET4 mesh to a TET10 mesh with the same number of elements results in a significant increase in model size and analysis run time. An investigation was conducted in order to verify this phenomenon and its implications for analysis of complex parts subjected to complex loading conditions. Investigation I A solid stepped shaft with a blend/shoulder radius was modeled in Unigraphics . The shaft varied in diameter from 4.0 inches at the large end to 2.0 inches at the small end. Each section was 10.0 inches in length, and a radius of 0.25 inches was used to blend the step between sections. This shaft was cantilevered on its large end and a 1000-pound load was applied to the small end of the shaft, offset from the end by a distance of 1.0 inches. This offset from the end of the shaft made viewing the model easier, since the loaded node was not in the same plane as the end of the shaft. The model and applied load are illustrated in Figure 1. The solid from Unigraphics was saved as a parasolid file for further model development and analysis using MSC/PATRAN and MSC/NASTRAN . The imported solid was meshed using a variety of global edge lengths and element topologies. Specifically, meshes were created using TET4 elements with global edge lengths of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0 inches, and TET10 elements with global edge lengths of 0.25, 0.5, and 1.0 inches. The nodes on the large end face of the mesh were constrained against translation in all directions to model the cantilever support, and all of the nodes in the solid mesh were constrained against rotation about all three axes. The rotational constraint of all solid-element nodes is necessary because solid elements have no stiffness in rotation. A node was generated 1.0 inches from the center of the small end face of the mesh. This node was connected to the nodes of the small end face with a rigid body element (RBE2) in all translational degrees of freedom. A 1000-pound load was applied to this node. Each model was then written out as an MSC/NASTRAN input file for analysis. Representative plots of the models are presented in Figures 2 and 3. A linear static analysis of each model was performed using MSC/NASTRAN , and the results were evaluated using MSC/PATRAN . Three stresses were investigated: Von Mises, axial (X-direction, along the length of the shaft), and maximum principal. These stresses were averaged over all elements in each of the models. Although unaveraged results are known to typically show higher peak stress levels than averaged results, this investigation was conducted to show the differences between the models rather than between any one of them and theoretical values. The peak values of each stress were observed and recorded. As can be seen in these figures, the size of the model varies with element topology. Table I shows the variation in model size due to element topology for several global edge lengths. It was noted after running the models that the theoretical stress concentration factor (Kt) had been determined for a shaft with an applied moment rather than a moment induced by an applied shear. In the models with applied forces, the moment varies along the length of the shaft. This makes the choice of the section at which the stress is calculated a factor in the comparison of the theoretical results to those from MSC/NASTRAN . To avoid introducing this additional variable, two new models were created. The TET4 model with a global edge length of 0.25 inches and the TET10 model with a global edge length of 0.5 inches were modified to use a moment as the applied load rather than a force. This ensured that the results obtained from MSC/NASTRAN were comparable to those calculated from theory. These modified models were identical to the original models with the exception of the applied load. The magnitude of the applied moment in the revised models was 1000 inch-pounds, generated by a 500-pound force couple with a 2-inch couple distance. Using the properties of the smaller end of the shaft, the stress concentration factor (Kt) at the root of the blend radius on the smaller shaft was determined to be approximately 1.625.

The stress level calculated using classical methods was 2,069 psi. MSC/NASTRAN results for the TET4 mesh predicted a peak axial stress of 1600 psi, which was 23% lower than the stress calculated by classical techniques. TET10 results predicted a peak axial stress of 2210 psi, which was 7% greater than the predicted analytical stress. Conclusions of Investigation I Based on the data produced in this investigation, it can be concluded that the TET4 mesh does indeed produce misleading stress results in areas where stress concentrations are of interest. In a very fine TET4 mesh (relative to the features being modeled), results may be closer to those predicted by classical methods. The primary disadvantage of this approach is that such fine meshes produce very cumbersome models that greatly increase computing resource demands. In this investigation, with a 0.25-inch radius, the finest mesh generated used a global edge length of 0.25 inches. It is possible that a global edge length of 0.0625 or less may result in a significant increase in accuracy, but such a model would greatly increase computing resource demands. Even as the mesh density doubles, the stress levels in the TET4 models fails to approach those of the TET10 models. At best, the TET4 results show stresses about twenty percent lower than the TET10 results. At worst, the error is approximately fifty percent. However, the TET10 stresses converged toward the theoretical value rather quickly, with the Von Mises stress increasing by only 1.27 percent when the mesh density was doubled by reducing the global edge length of 1.0 inches to 0.5 inches. The data generated in this study, however, suggests that it is not necessary to keep the same number of elements when moving from TET4 elements to TET10 elements. Fewer TET10 elements can be used to get more accurate stress predictions. Another finding of this investigation was that the stress levels predicted in areas away from stress concentrations are conservative for both TET4 and TET10 meshes. At the extreme fiber of the small shaft in the modeled problem, the TET4 mesh predicted an axial stress of 1,340 psi. The TET10 mesh predicted 1,400 psi. The stress level computed by classical methods was 1,273 psi. In this situation, the TET4 model was slightly more than 5% conservative and the TET10 model was conservative by nearly 10%. It would therefore appear that although TET4 elements tend to underestimate stress levels in areas of stress concentrations, they appear to be reasonably accurate in areas away from stress concentrations. Investigation II A second investigation was made to determine the number of elements required through the thickness of a solid model to ensure accurate displacement and stress predictions in bending applications. In general FEM solid modeling, at least three elements are required through the thickness of a member in bending to adequately model the bending behavior of the member. A more accurate statement may be that there should be more than one integration point through the thickness of a member in bending. This would mean that a single second-order element would yield more accurate results than multiple first-order elements. A bar of rectangular cross section was modeled in Unigraphics and transferred as a parasolid for analysis using MSC/PATRAN and MSC/NASTRAN . Its height was 2.0 inches and its width was 1.0 inch. The bar was 10.0 inches in length. Material properties for 2024-T3 were given to the solid elements of the bar. One end of the bar was constrained against all translation to model a cantilever support. A rigid body element (RBE2) was used at the free end to introduce the applied moment. A grid was created one inch from the end of the bar, along the centerline of the bar. This grid was defined as the independent grid of the RBE2, and the grids on the end face of the bar were defined as the dependent grids in their translational degrees of freedom (UX, UY, UZ). Attached to the independent grid were two stiff bars, extending one inch up and one inch down, whose ends were loaded with a force couple to create the applied moment. The magnitude of the force couple was 500,000 pounds, which resulted in a moment of 1,000,000 inch-pounds. The geometry and load application for this model are shown in Figure 4.

The solid was then meshed with four TET10 mesh densities, using global edge lengths to obtain meshes that had one, two, three, and then four elements through the bar thickness. The four models are shown in s Figure 5. The models were all submitted to MSC/NASTRAN for linear static analysis.

The results of this second investigation were read in to MSC/PATRAN and stress contour plots were generated. The displacement of the loaded point was also compared. The vertical downward displacement of the loaded point and the extreme fiber axial stress are shown in Table II. Classical analysis predicts an extreme fiber stress of 1.5 million PSI. Simple cantilever analysis predicts a downward end deflection of 7.1429 inches. As the results in Table II show, the deflection at the load application point does not vary significantly (less than 4% variation) as the mesh density increases. The stress levels are all quite close to the theoretical value of 1,500,000 psi. The maximum error occurs in the coarsest mesh, and that error is less than 7% conservative. This indicates that the bending stress levels predicted by coarser meshes are slightly more severe than those predicted by finer meshes. The penalty for using finer meshes, however, is the rapid increase in the size of the model as measured by the number of degrees of freedom. This same rectangular beam was then meshed with six different densities of TET4 elements to examine how the accuracy of stresses predicted by first-order elements improves with mesh density. The deflection and stress results obtained from this investigation are presented in Table III. The variation of stress level predicted as the number of elements increases through the thickness of the beam is plotted in Figure 6, along with theoretical results. When compared to the TET10 results in Table II, it is obvious that the second-order element mesh is considerably more accurate in predicting stress levels for this geometry. The TET4 model with four elements through the thickness of the beam is more conservative in its stress estimate than the TET10 model with only two elements through the beam thickness. Thus, a part analyzed using the first-order model would probably be heavier than if it were analyzed using the second-order model with a similar number of degrees of freedom. Conclusions of Investigation II Based on this investigation, it can be concluded that second-order solid elements give satisfactory stress predictions with as few as two elements through the thickness of a structure. This increase in accuracy over a first-order element (TET4) is primarily due to the use of multiple integration points in the higher-order element formulation. Additionally, although the coarser meshes are less accurate in their prediction of stress levels, they are conservative. This indicates that even coarse solid models are acceptable for the design of structural components, as long as second- or higher-order elements are used. The mesh size is then determined by the accuracy required in modeling the geometry of the component in question. Another advantage of second- and higher-order elements is that they are not restricted to straight edges, but can model curved surfaces and solids with reasonable accuracy. It is therefore not necessary to use very small elements, as is the case with first-order elements. It can also be concluded that as mesh density increases, first-order TET4 elements converge towards the theoretical stress from lower initial predictions. Stress levels predicted using coarse meshes are unconservative. Second-order TET10 elements converge from higher stress levels as mesh density is increased. Stress levels predicted using coarse TET10 meshes are overly conservative. One limitation of second- and higher-order elements is that they are not supported in MSC/NASTRAN as nonlinear elements. Only first-order elements are supported in nonlinear analyses. Since these elements produce unreliable stress predictions in areas of stress concentration, it is not advisable to use MSC/NASTRAN solid elements to analyze structures that behave in a nonlinear manner.

Figures and Tables

1000 lbs 4 in R = 0.25 in 2 in

10 in

10 in

1 in

Figure 1. Stepped shaft geometry and applied load.

Figure 2. TET4 Mesh

Figure 3. TET10 Mesh

2 in 2 in

1 in

500,000 lbs

500,000 lbs 10 in 1 in

Figure 4. Rectangular bar geometry and applied load.

Z Y X

Z Y X

Z Y X

Z Y X

Figure 5. TET10 models of rectangular bar.

1800 1600 1400

Peak Axial Stress, ksi

1200

1500 ksi
1000 800 600 400 200 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Theory TET4 TET10

Number of Elements Through Beam Thickness

Figure 6. Peak stress convergence, rectangular beam model.

Global Edge Length 0.250 in 0.500 in 0.750 in 1.000 in

TET4 Nodes 15,723 1,962 647 321

TET10 Nodes 119,432 13,912 1,948

TET4 Elements 84,531 9,157 2,593 1,065

TET10 Elements 84,533 9,169 1,069

TET4 D.O.F. 46,287 5,646 1,827 888

TET10 D.O.F. 355,011 40,902 5,619

Table I. Variation of model size with element topology.

Number of Elements Through Beam Thickness 1 2 3 4

Degrees Of Freedom 282 918 2,406 4,932

Downward Deflection of Loaded Point 8.2320 8.4573 8.4807 8.4939

Maximum Axial Stress (Upper & Lower Surfaces) 1,600,000 psi 1,510,000 psi 1,500,000 psi 1,500,000 psi

Table II. Deflection and stress results for rectangular bar model (TET10).

Number of Elements Through Beam Thickness 1 2 3 4 5 6

Degrees Of Freedom 69 186 441 828 1,728 2,433

Downward Deflection of Loaded Point 1.6098 5.5371 6.2822 6.8980 7.5786 7.8700

Maximum Axial Stress (Upper & Lower Surfaces) 537,000 psi 1,160,000 psi 1,300,000 psi 1,570,000 psi 1,610,000 psi 1,570,000 psi

Table III. Deflection and stress results for rectangular bar model (TET4).

Trademark Acknowledgements NASTRAN is a registered trademark of NASA. MSC/NASTRAN is an enhanced, proprietary version developed and maintained by the MacNeal Schwendler Corporation. MSC/PATRAN is a registered trademark of the MacNeal Schwendler Corporation. Unigraphics is a registered trademark of Electronic Data Systems.

You might also like